Kennedy was born and raised in an Irish Cadowic famiwy in Sacramento, Cawifornia.[7] He was de son of Andony J. Kennedy, an attorney wif a reputation for infwuence in de Cawifornia wegiswature, and Gwadys (née McLeod), who participated in many wocaw civic activities.[8] As a boy, Kennedy came into contact wif prominent powiticians of de day, such as Cawifornia Governor and water U.S. Chief Justice Earw Warren. He served as a page in de Cawifornia State Senate as a young man, uh-hah-hah-hah. He attended C.K. McCwatchy High Schoow where he was an honors student and graduated in 1954.[9]

Kennedy was in private practice in San Francisco from 1961 to 1963. In 1963, fowwowing his fader's deaf, he took over his fader's Sacramento practice, which he operated untiw 1975.[9] From 1965 to 1988, he was a Professor of Constitutionaw Law at McGeorge Schoow of Law, at de University of de Pacific.[10] He continues to teach waw students at seminars during McGeorge's European summer sessions in Sawzburg, Austria. He remains Pacific McGeorge's wongest-serving active facuwty member.

During Kennedy's time as a Cawifornia waw professor and attorney, he hewped Cawifornia Governor Ronawd Reagan draft a state tax proposaw.[9]

Kennedy has served in numerous positions during his career, incwuding de Cawifornia Army Nationaw Guard in 1961 and de board of de Federaw Judiciaw Center from 1987 to 1988. He awso served on two committees of de Judiciaw Conference of de United States: de Advisory Panew on Financiaw Discwosure Reports and Judiciaw Activities (subseqwentwy renamed de Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct) from 1979 to 1987, and de Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979 to 1990, which he chaired from 1982 to 1990.

President Reagan and Kennedy meeting in de Ovaw Office on November 11, 1987

On November 11, 1987, Kennedy was nominated to de Supreme Court seat vacated by Lewis F. Poweww, Jr., who announced his retirement in wate June.[12] His nomination came after Reagan's faiwed nominations of Robert Bork, who was nominated in Juwy but rejected by de Senate on October 23,[13] and Dougwas Ginsburg,[14][15] who widdrew his name from consideration on November 7 after admitting to marijuana use.[16] Kennedy was den subjected to an unprecedentedwy dorough investigation of his background,[17] which he easiwy passed.

In a wower court dissent dat Kennedy had written before joining de Supreme Court, he had criticized powice for bribing a chiwd into showing dem where de chiwd's moder hid drugs. Considering such conduct offensive and destructive of de famiwy, Kennedy had written, "indifference to personaw wiberty is but de precursor of de state's hostiwity to it."[18] Kennedy had written an articwe de year before, however, about judiciaw restraint, and de fowwowing excerpt from it was read awoud at his confirmation hearing:

One can concwude dat certain essentiaw, or fundamentaw, rights shouwd exist in any just society. It does not fowwow dat each of dose essentiaw rights is one dat we as judges can enforce under de written Constitution, uh-hah-hah-hah. The Due Process Cwause is not a guarantee of every right dat shouwd inhere in an ideaw system. Many argue dat a just society grants a right to engage in homosexuaw conduct. If dat view is accepted, de Bowers decision in effect says de State of Georgia has de right to make a wrong decision—wrong in de sense dat it viowates some peopwe's views of rights in a just society. We can extend dat swightwy to say dat Georgia's right to be wrong in matters not specificawwy controwwed by de Constitution is a necessary component of its own powiticaw processes. Its citizens have de powiticaw wiberty to direct de governmentaw process to make decisions dat might be wrong in de ideaw sense, subject to correction in de ordinary powiticaw process.[19]

Kennedy said about Griswowd v. Connecticut (a privacy case regarding contraceptives), "I reawwy dink I wouwd wike to draw de wine and not tawk about de Griswowd case so far as its reasoning or its resuwt."[20] He awso discussed "a zone of wiberty, a zone of protection, a wine dat's drawn where de individuaw can teww de Government, 'Beyond dis wine you may not go.'"[21][22]

His hearings before de judiciary committee began on December 14,[23][24] and wasted just dree consecutive days.[25] When his nomination was voted upon, Kennedy received bipartisan support. Maureen Hoch of PBS has written dat he "virtuawwy saiwed drough de confirmation process and was widewy viewed by conservatives and wiberaws awike as bawanced and fair".[26] The U.S. Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0.[22] Absent from de vote were dree Democrats: Pauw Simon and Aw Gore were campaigning and Joe Biden was iww.[27] Attorney Generaw Edwin Meese presented Kennedy's commission to de Court in a swearing-in ceremony on February 18, 1988.[28]

Though appointed by a Repubwican president, Kennedy is not easiwy pigeonhowed ideowogicawwy. He has tended to wook at cases individuawwy instead of deciding dem on de basis of a rigid ideowogy.[9] As Kennedy said at a reunion of his waw cwerks, "We awways tried to get it right." Conservative pundit George Wiww and Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett have described Kennedy's jurisprudence as "wibertarian",[29] awdough oder wegaw schowars have disagreed.[30][31]

Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor were swing votes in many 5–4 and 6–3 decisions on de Rehnqwist and Roberts courts. On issues of rewigion, he howds to a wess separationist reading of de Estabwishment Cwause dan did O'Connor, favoring a "Coercion Test" dat he detaiwed in County of Awwegheny v. ACLU.[32] He awso provided an opinion in Town of Greece v. Gawwoway case, concwuding, "The town of Greece does not viowate de First Amendment's Estabwishment Cwause by opening its meetings wif sectarian prayer dat comports wif America's tradition and doesn't coerce participation by nonadherents."

Kennedy has supported adding substance to de "wiberty" interest protected by de Due Process Cwause of de Fourteenf Amendment, which means he supports a constitutionaw right to abortion in principwe, dough he has voted to uphowd severaw restrictions on dat right, incwuding waws to prohibit partiaw-birf abortions. He is "tough on crime" and opposes creating constitutionaw restrictions on de powice, especiawwy in Fourf Amendment cases invowving searches for iwwegaw drugs, awdough dere are some exceptions, such as his concurrence in Ferguson v. City of Charweston. He awso takes a very broad view of constitutionaw protection for speech under de First Amendment, invawidating a congressionaw waw prohibiting "virtuaw" chiwd pornography in de 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU.[33]

In Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990), Kennedy uphewd a restriction on abortion for minors dat reqwired bof parents to be notified about de procedure.

In 1992, he joined O'Connor's pwurawity opinion in Pwanned Parendood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed in principwe (dough widout many detaiws) de Roe v. Wade decision recognizing de right to abortion under de Due Process Cwause of de Fourteenf Amendment. The pwurawity opinion, signed jointwy by dree justices appointed by Ronawd Reagan and George H. W. Bush, ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Kennedy had stated at weast as earwy as 1989 dat, in order to uphowd precedent, he might not vote to overturn Roe.[34] According to court insiders, Kennedy had reportedwy considered overturning Roe, but in de end decided to uphowd restrictions whiwe affirming de Roe precedent.[35]

In water abortion decisions, it became apparent dat Kennedy dought Casey had narrowed Roe and awwowed more restrictions. Owing to de Court's awtered composition under President Cwinton, Kennedy was no wonger de fiff vote to strike down abortion restrictions. Hence, O'Connor became de justice who defined de meaning of Casey in subseqwent cases, whiwe Kennedy was rewegated to dissents in which he sought to expwain what he dought Casey meant. For exampwe, Kennedy dissented in de 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down waws criminawizing partiaw-birf abortion.[36]

After de judiciaw appointments by President George W. Bush, Kennedy again became de needed fiff vote to strike down abortion restrictions. Since Kennedy's conception of abortion rights is narrower dan O'Connor's, dis wed to a Court swightwy more supportive of abortion restrictions after 2006. Kennedy wrote de majority opinion in 2007's Gonzawes v. Carhart, which hewd dat a federaw waw criminawizing partiaw-birf abortion did not viowate Casey because it did not impose an "undue burden". The decision did not expresswy overruwe Stenberg, awdough many commentators saw it as having dat effect.[37][38]

On October 19, 2009, Kennedy temporariwy bwocked Washington state officiaws from reweasing de names of peopwe who signed petitions cawwing for a referendum bawwot measure dat wouwd repeaw a gay rights domestic partnership waw, but joined de subseqwent majority decision in Doe v. Reed, which stated de Washington waw permitting signature rewease was constitutionaw, but remanded de matter to de wower court to determine wheder de rewease of dis particuwar petition's signatures was constitutionaw.

In de 2010 case Christian Legaw Society v. Martinez, de Court hewd dat a pubwic waw cowwege's powicy reqwiring dat aww student organizations awwow any student to join was constitutionaw. The Christian Legaw Society wanted an exemption from de powicy because de organization barred students based on rewigion and sexuaw orientation, uh-hah-hah-hah. Hastings Cowwege of Law refused to grant de exemption, uh-hah-hah-hah. The Court found dat Hastings' powicy was reasonabwe and viewpoint neutraw. Kennedy wrote a concurrence joining de majority.

On August 4, 2010, Dahwia Lidwick wrote about Judge Vaughn R. Wawker's ruwing dat overturned Cawifornia's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, Wawker "is not Andony Kennedy. But when de chips are down, he certainwy knows how to write wike him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans … and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas … In a stunning decision dis afternoon … Wawker trod heaviwy on de paf Kennedy has bwazed on gay rights."[41] The next day, Lidwick said on ABC's Good Morning America, "Wawker's ruwing dat Cawifornia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutionaw was aimed at one man: Justice Andony Kennedy."[42]

On June 26, 2013, Section 3 of de Defense of Marriage Act was hewd unconstitutionaw in United States v. Windsor. In de majority opinion on dis case, Kennedy wrote, "The federaw statute is invawid, for no wegitimate purpose overcomes de purpose and effect to disparage and injure dose whom de State, by its marriage waws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to dispwace dis protection and treating dose persons as wiving in marriages wess respected dan oders, de federaw statute is in viowation of de Fiff Amendment."[43]

Two years water, Kennedy audored de majority ruwing in de decision of Obergefeww v. Hodges, which howds dat same-sex coupwes must be awwowed to marry nationwide.[44][45] The cwosing paragraph of Kennedy's ruwing has been used by many coupwes in deir marriage vows:[46]

No union is more profound dan marriage, for it embodies de highest ideaws of wove, fidewity, devotion, sacrifice and famiwy. In forming a maritaw union, two peopwe become someding greater dan once dey were.

Wif de Court's majority in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, Kennedy agreed dat de execution of de mentawwy iww and dose under 18 at de time of de crime was unconstitutionaw. In Kansas v. Marsh, however, he decwined to join de dissent, which qwestioned de overaww "soundness" of de existing capitaw punishment system.

In 2008, Kennedy wrote de majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana. The opinion, joined by de court's four more wiberaw justices, hewd, "[t]he Eighf Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing de deaf penawty for de rape of a chiwd where de crime did not resuwt, and was not intended to resuwt, in de victim's deaf." The opinion went on to state, "The court concwudes dat dere is a distinction between intentionaw first-degree murder, on de one hand, and non-homicide crimes against individuaws, even incwuding chiwd rape, on de oder. The watter crimes may be devastating in deir harm, as here, but in terms of moraw depravity and of de injury to de person and to de pubwic, dey cannot compare to murder in deir severity and irrevocabiwity." The opinion concwuded dat in cases of crimes against individuaws, "de deaf penawty shouwd not be expanded to instances where de victim's wife was not taken, uh-hah-hah-hah."[47]

Kennedy wrote de majority decision in Coeur Awaska, Inc. v. Soudeast Awaska Conservation Counciw (2009), which invowved an Awaskan mining company dat pwanned to extract new gowd from a mine dat had been cwosed for decades using a techniqwe known as "frof-fwotation". This techniqwe wouwd produce approximatewy 4.5 miwwion tons of "swurry", a dick waste product waced wif toxic ewements such as wead and mercury. The company intended to dispose of de waste in a nearby wake, which wouwd eventuawwy decrease de depf of de wake by fifty feet and fwood de surrounding wand wif contaminated water. Whiwe federaw waw forbids "[t]he use of any river, wake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system", Kennedy's decision stated dat powwutants are exempt from dis waw so wong as dey have "de effect of … changing de bottom ewevation of water". Justice Ginsburg's dissent stated dat such a reading of federaw waw "strains creduwity" because it awwows "[w]howe categories of reguwated industries" to "gain immunity from a variety of powwution-controw standards".

On June 12, 2008, Kennedy wrote de 5–4 majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. The case chawwenged de wegawity of Lakhdar Boumediene’s detention at de Guantanamo Bay miwitary base as weww as de constitutionawity of de Miwitary Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Kennedy was joined by de four more wiberaw judges in finding dat de constitutionawwy guaranteed right of habeas corpus appwies to persons hewd in Guantanamo Bay and to persons designated as enemy combatants on dat territory. They awso found dat de Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 faiwed to provide an adeqwate substitute for habeas corpus and dat de MCA was an unconstitutionaw suspension of dat right.[48][49][50][51]

The Court awso concwuded dat de detainees are not reqwired to exhaust review procedures in de court of appeaws before seeking habeas rewief in de district court. In de ruwing, Kennedy cawwed de Combatant Status Review Tribunaws "inadeqwate".[48][49][50][51] He expwained, "to howd dat de powiticaw branches may switch de constitution on or off at wiww wouwd wead to a regime in which dey, not dis court, 'say what de waw is.'"[52] The decision struck down section seven (7) of de MCA but weft intact de Detainee Treatment Act. In a concurring opinion, Justice Souter stressed de fact dat de prisoners invowved have been imprisoned for as many as six years.[53]

In a 5–4 decision, Fworence v. County of Burwington (2012), de Supreme Court ruwed dat peopwe detained and admitted to de generaw jaiw popuwation for any offense may be subjected to strip searches widout a reason to suspect contraband. Kennedy, joined by de court's conservative wing, wrote, "Every detainee who wiww be admitted to de generaw popuwation may be reqwired to undergo a cwose visuaw inspection whiwe undressed," and "undoubted security imperatives invowved in jaiw supervision override de assertion dat some detainees must be exempt from de more invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonabwe suspicion of a conceawed weapon or oder contraband." According to Kennedy, "peopwe detained for minor offenses can turn out to be de most devious and dangerous criminaws," and cited exampwes incwuding Okwahoma City bomber Timody McVeigh and a September 11 hijacker, who were bof stopped for traffic viowations shortwy before committing deir respective crimes.[54]

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[55] in Citizens United found dat de BCRA §203 prohibition of aww independent expenditures by corporations and unions viowated de First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If de First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jaiwing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simpwy engaging in powiticaw speech."[56]

Justice Kennedy's opinion for de majority awso noted dat because de First Amendment does not distinguish between media and oder corporations, dese restrictions wouwd awwow Congress to suppress powiticaw speech in newspapers, books, tewevision, and bwogs.[57] The Court overruwed Austin, which had hewd dat a state waw dat prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in ewections did not viowate de First and Fourteenf Amendments. The Court awso overruwed dat portion of McConneww dat uphewd BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "ewectioneering communications". The Court's ruwing effectivewy freed corporations and unions to spend money bof on "ewectioneering communications" and to directwy advocate for de ewection or defeat of candidates (awdough not to contribute directwy to candidates or powiticaw parties).

On October 25, 2011, Richard L. Hasen wrote dat in de 2012 ewection super PACs "wiww wikewy repwace powiticaw parties as a conduit for warge, often secret contributions, awwowing an end run around de $2,500 individuaw contribution wimit and de bar on corporate and wabor contributions to federaw candidates". According to Hasen, de rise of super PACs dates to a sentence in Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United: "We now concwude dat independent expenditures, incwuding dose made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or de appearance of corruption."[58] Kennedy awso wrote in his opinion dat he was not concerned if higher expenditures by peopwe or corporations were viewed as weading to corruption, stating, "... de appearance of infwuence or access wiww not cause de ewectorate to wose faif in dis democracy."[59]

On de issue of de wimits of free speech, Kennedy joined a majority to protect fwag burning in de controversiaw case of Texas v. Johnson (1989).[60] In his concurrence, Kennedy wrote, "It is poignant but fundamentaw dat de fwag protects dose who howd it in contempt."

Kennedy has joined wif Court majorities in decisions favoring states' rights and invawidating federaw and state affirmative action programs. He ruwed wif de majority on Eqwaw Protection grounds in de controversiaw 2000 Bush v. Gore case dat hawted continuing recounts in de 2000 presidentiaw ewection and ended de wegaw chawwenge to de ewection of President George Bush.

In de 2005 Gonzawes v. Raich case, he joined de wiberaw members of de Court (awong wif conservative Justice Scawia) in permitting de federaw government to prohibit de use of medicaw marijuana, even in states where it is wegaw.[61] Severaw weeks water, in de controversiaw case of Kewo v. City of New London (2005), he joined de four more wiberaw justices in supporting de wocaw government's power to take private property for economic devewopment drough de use of eminent domain, uh-hah-hah-hah.[62]

In Norfowk & Western Raiwway Co. v. Ayers (2003), Kennedy wrote a partiaw dissent in which he argued dat raiwroad workers who had contracted asbestosis from deir empwoyment shouwd not be entitwed to recovery for de emotionaw pain and suffering from deir increased risk of cancer.[63]

In Baze v. Rees, Kennedy pwayed a deciding rowe in de outcome of wedaw injection, uh-hah-hah-hah. Some correspondents bewieved he wouwd pway a warger rowe, bewieving more dan two judges wouwd dissent.[64]

A December 2011 articwe in de Huffington Post noted dat Kennedy dissented on an interpretation of de Sixf Amendment right to confront witnesses, where a wab tech who created a forensic report on a case is reqwired to testify at triaw if cawwed. His dissent, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Awito, cwaimed dat de ruwe wouwd pwace a burden on understaffed wabs. However, in Wiwwiams v. Iwwinois, Kennedy sided wif Scawia's interpretation of de amendment.[65]

Kennedy has rewiabwy issued conservative ruwings during most of his tenure, having voted wif Wiwwiam Rehnqwist as often as any oder justice from 1992 to de end of de Rehnqwist Court in 2005.[66] In his first term on de court, Kennedy voted wif Rehnqwist 92 percent of de time—more dan any oder justice.[67]

After 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor, who had previouswy been known as de court's "swing vote", retired, Kennedy began to receive de titwe for himsewf. Kennedy is more conservative dan former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, rewigion, and abortion, and intensewy diswikes being wabewed a "swing vote".[68]

On de Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides de outcome of a case. In de 2008–2009 term, he was in de majority 92 percent of de time. In de 23 decisions in which de justices spwit 5-to-4, Kennedy was in de majority in aww but five. Of dose 23 decisions, 16 were strictwy awong ideowogicaw wines, and Kennedy joined de conservative wing of de court 11 times; de wiberaws, 5.[69]

In de 2010–2011 term, 16 cases were decided by a 5–4 vote, and Kennedy joined de majority in 14 of de decisions.[2]

According to wegaw writer Jeffrey Toobin, starting in 2003, Kennedy became a weading proponent of de use of foreign and internationaw waw as an aid to interpreting de United States Constitution, uh-hah-hah-hah.[70] Toobin sees dis consideration of foreign waw as de biggest factor behind Kennedy's occasionaw breaking wif his most conservative cowweagues.[70] The use of foreign waw in Supreme Court opinions dates back to at weast 1829, dough according to Toobin, its use in interpreting de Constitution on "basic qwestions of individuaw wiberties" began onwy in de wate 1990s.[70] A profiwe of Kennedy in de Los Angewes Times on June 14, 2008, focused on his internationawist perspective. According to David Savage, Kennedy had become a strong proponent of interpreting de guarantees of wiberty and eqwawity in wine wif modern human rights waw: "wawyers and judges have come to bewieve de basic principwes of human rights are common to de peopwes of worwd."[71]

According to wegaw reporter Jan Crawford, Kennedy attracts de ire of conservatives when he does not vote wif his more conservative cowweagues.[72] In 2005, Tom DeLay criticized Kennedy for his rewiance on internationaw waw and for conducting his own Internet research, cawwing him a judiciaw activist.[73] According to wegaw anawyst Jeffrey Toobin, some conservatives view Kennedy's pro-gay-rights and pro-choice ruwings as betrayaws.[70] According to Greenburg, de "bitter" qwawity of some movement conservatives' views on Kennedy stems from his eventuaw redinking of positions on abortion, rewigion, and de deaf penawty (which Kennedy bewieves shouwd not be appwied to juveniwes or de mentawwy chawwenged).[72]

A short 2008 waw review articwe by retired wawyer Dougwas M. Parker in de wegaw journaw The Green Bag[74] charged dat much of de criticism of Kennedy was based upon "pop psychowogy", rader dan carefuw anawysis of his opinions. Kennedy himsewf responds to concerns about judiciaw activism dis way: "An activist court is a court dat makes a decision you don't wike."[75]

Kennedy has been active off de bench as weww, cawwing for reform of overcrowded American prisons in a speech before de American Bar Association. He spends his summers in Sawzburg, Austria, where he teaches internationaw and American waw at de University of Sawzburg for de McGeorge Schoow of Law internationaw program and often attends de warge yearwy internationaw judges conference hewd dere.[76] Defending his use of internationaw waw, in 2005 Kennedy towd The New Yorker staff writer Jeffrey Toobin, "Why shouwd worwd opinion care dat de American Administration wants to bring freedom to oppressed peopwes? Is dat not because dere's some underwying common mutuaw interest, some underwying common shared idea, some underwying common shared aspiration, underwying unified concept of what human dignity means? I dink dat's what we're trying to teww de rest of de worwd, anyway."[77]

^ abMark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "High Court: Gitmo detainees have rights in court". Associated Press. Archived from de originaw on June 22, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008. The court said not onwy dat de detainees have rights under de Constitution, but dat de system de administration has put in pwace to cwassify dem as enemy combatants and review dose decisions is inadeqwate.CS1 maint: BOT: originaw-urw status unknown (wink)